Summary
finding no constitutional violation where inmate alleged laundry services were available less than once or twice per month and prisoner went seven weeks without a clean uniform
Summary of this case from Engel v. ERDCCOpinion
No. 13-1884
02-21-2014
MATTHEW H. WOJTASZEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS DART, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 13 C 1687
Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.
ORDER
Matthew Wojtaszek brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to his complaints about the prison's infrequent laundry service. The district court dismissed the complaint at screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We affirm.
Wojtaszek alleged that while he was a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, his bedding was exchanged only one or two times per month, laundry service was available even less so, and he once went seven weeks without laundry service for his uniform (and was not allowed to wash it himself). In dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, the district court concluded that the laundry service Wojtaszek described was not objectively serious because it did not deny him the "minimal civilized measures of life's necessities."
On appeal Wojtaszek asserts that the district court wrongly dismissed his complaint because the prison's limited laundry service creates an unconstitutional condition of confinement. But as the district court explained, infrequent laundry service alone is not an objectively serious condition that violates the constitution. See Martin v. Tyson, 845 F.2d 1451, 1457 (7th Cir. 1988) (lack of pillow and cleaning supplies, and infrequent laundry services not unconstitutional); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 342 (5th Cir. 2004).
Wojtaszek incurred one "strike" for filing his complaint and incurs another for this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Hains v. Washington, 131 F.3d 1248, 1250 (7th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.